In compiling this list of ëAlleged CIA Aircraft Flying into Scotlandí, it is clear that much detail is still to emerge about the subject. What is beyond dispute is that in recent years there have been scores of flights through Scottish airports by planes operated on behalf of CIA front companies.

CIA Air Org Chart

The BBC has been reporting on this report, without showing it. Here it is -- most informative.

REPORT

TO: ANGUS ROBERTSON MP, SNP FOREIGN AFFAIRS SPOKESMAN

FROM: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

SUBJECT: ALLEGED CIA AIRCRAFT FLYING INTO SCOTLAND

DATE: 18TH OF JANUARY, 2006

CC:

In compiling this list of ëAlleged CIA Aircraft Flying into Scotlandí, it is clear that much detail is still to emerge about the subject. What is beyond dispute is that in recent years there have been scores of flights through Scottish airports by planes operated on behalf of CIA front companies.

Compiling a comprehensive list is made difficult by the following facts:

· The lack of confirmation regarding the number of flights that we are told have operated within Scottish air space.

· If the aircraft were only chartered by the CIA from a commercial broker, then it is reasonable to assume that the aircraft would be put out on a commercial rent as soon as possible.

· Not all flights would be for rendition. A proportion of the flights would probably have undertaken other intelligence roles, not just in the Middle East but also within Europe, and as we have seen, within the heart of Central Europe.

· Some web sites have now been turned off and one has a statement up on the site saying that ìIt has been recommended we remove this page so we have. The information is out there so if you need to find it is available just not here. Sorry...î I feel it is now safe to say that we have government departments on both side of the Atlantic that are not happy with the glare of publicity.

It is my hope that I give all who read this a better understanding of this form of aviation flying.

In observing the routes that the aircraft follow, and not just those ones that are operating via Scotland I would draw attention to Kyrgyzstan. This is a country where it is reasonable to assume that ìdeals have been madeî. This is a country that has natural resources such as significant deposits of gold and rare earth metals; locally exploitable coal, oil, and natural gas; other deposits of nepheline, mercury, bismuth, lead, and zinc.

When looking at the CIAís flying operations in Europe, certain airports have a high concentration of flights, such as:

Malta- Although Malta has taken the Boeing 737s, it would appear to be the away base for the ATRís and CASA aircraft that are operating within Afghanistan.

Prague- From what I have read it would appear that almost half of what is believed to be the CIAís fleet has been into Prague airport, and there is photographic evidence to back this statement up. This is one of the reasons why I would say to those who are looking at the prison part not to write off Kyrgyzstan. I have been able to track many flights but not all. The MD82 aircraft that is used as a flying prison was also linked by the Canadian parliament as operating as Kyrgyzstan Airlines while still a US Prison Plane, thus the reason I feel Kyrgyzstan should not be written off.

Frankfurt- for the CIA Frankfurt is home away from home; you could call the Air Force Basis at Frankfurt a ìComfort Zoneî. This is mainly the European base for the 737ís and the L100-30ís. It would also be viewed as the European warehouse for the CIA to help support other operations including Afghanistan.

Budapest- Over the last two years Budapest has become very active with CIA cargo aircraft. Using cargo aircraft does make it hard to say one way or the other if prisoners are on-board the aircraft. Remember also that the CIA conducts other operations in Europe.

Rotterdam- Has been looking after the ATRís and the CASA aircraft, but on short stays relating to re-fuelling and overnight stays.

Spain- certain parts of the CIAís operation in Spain have been interesting, as it has been noted, and photographic evidence is available, that when a terrorist attack in Madrid took place the following day N313P (now N4476S) was departing from Palma de Mallorca Airport.

I hope the following will help you understand how the companies are set-up which is called the SHELL GAME: [SEE CHART.]

CIA-AIRPLANE SHELL COMPANIES Have ONE Employee: A LAWYER. A list of known fronts, including Prescott, is below. The chart shows how the fronts and other, real, companies work for the CIA.

Front Companies and Real Companies

The fronts are set up by lawyers. They are holding companies for aircraft and they provide a mail drop for business related to the aircraft.

Several real companies, contractors, some set up by the CIA, have actual operations, including employees and premises such as aircraft hangars.

The CIA minimizes contact with outsiders and works through buffers. The front-company lawyers are buffers between civilians and the CIA.

The Naval Engineering Logistics office is the go-between for military personnel interfacing with the CIAís aviation office on routine matters.

For sensitive top-secret mission communication, the channel is direct between the military and the CIA. The CIA employs military personnel in renditions, and communications about this would be direct.

The contractors occupy a position of trust with the CIA, and communication with them is more or less direct.

Brief History: Alamada Corp, is allegedly one of the companies behind Aero Contractors Ltd. In 1979 Aero Contractors was an extension of Air America (used extensively during the Vietnam was, but closed down in 1976).

N822US is a contracted aircraft and for a period of time was contracted by the US Marshalls Service for the transportation of prisoners both domestically as well as to international destinations. N822US came to the attention of the press some time ago, to be precise 7th of December 2002, one day before landing at Glasgow Airport. At that time it has been reported that the landed in Frobisher Bay in Canada, the following is a transcript regarding the questions being asked of the Minister for Foreign Affairs in the Canadian Parliament:

Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for three days the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness has been unable to answer a simple question about whether or not prison planes landed on Canadian soil.

Here is a very simple question for her. Can she confirm that a Kyrgyzstan airlines DC-9, registration number N822US, identified as a U.S. prison plane, landed in Frobisher Bay on December 7, 2002, in Goose Bay on March 12, 2005, and again in Goose Bay on June 1, 2005?

Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister has answered that question. We have no reliable information proving that the United States is conducting activities in Canada that are in breach of Canadian or international law.

As I myself said in this House, if we find out that Canadian territory is being used in contravention of Canadian or International law, we will of course raise the issue with the United States. Canada expects its territory, including its air space, not to be used by foreign governments for activities that are in breach of Canadian or international law.

Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, that is enough. The minister is unable to tell us whether a plane landed in Canada or not because she has something to hide. After what happened to Maher Arar, we are right to be worried. What is the minister hiding from us?

Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the minister has answered this question very clearly. We have no reliable information to support the suspicions the Bloc Québécois is trying to stir up once again. There is no reliable information to confirm that Canadian air space was used in breach of Canadian or international law.

There is one very interesting statement made by Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ), she said ìKyrgyzstan airlines DC-9, registration number N822US, identified as a U.S. prison plane”.

Kyrgyzstan is a landlocked country, surrounded by China, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. It is a nation with abundant natural resources such as significant deposits of gold and rare earth metals; locally exploitable coal, oil, and natural gas; other deposits of nepheline, mercury, bismuth, lead, and zinc. 12 It is understandable that the Americans would have an interest in Kyrgyzstan.

In 2005 N822US attracted the attention of the Norwegian Press. The press became interested after the aircraft allegedly used in CIA service, made an illegal stop-over at Sola airport on June 1 of 2005, and again on June 18th 2005. Government flights are required to obtain special permission to land. The plane came from Bucuresti, and after stopping at Stavanger for a little over an hour for refuelling, it continued to the US Naval Air Station at Keflavik, Iceland. No one was allowed access to the plane at Sola airport13.

When the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs ìinquiredî into the matter of the June 1 stopover, the US response was reported to be ìno knowledge.î This was also Rumsfeldís claim when he visited the Nato base at JattÂ/Stavanger a week later. There was "not an ounce" of connection to the government as far as he or anyone in the DoD knew. He added, ìObviously, you donít know what you donít know.î

One week after the official Norwegian request was made and Norwegian press had tracked down the plane, US Defence Secretary Rumsfeld still had no idea whose plane this was and what it was doing. The US gave no other official explanation.

On November 16, Norwegian officials met with of the US Embassy, with whom they had an "undramatic" conversation. Responding to questions from journalists, Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg simply stated that "When the Americans say the planes were not in government service, we must believe them." As late as November 12, the Norwegian daily Aftenposten reported that the US never replied to the Norwegian request for information about the MD-80, and that the US never comments on CIA activity.

In the November 16 article, Anne Lene Dale Sandsten of the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs says the MoFA has no reason to believe that the US has done ìanything wrongî with respect to the Gardermoen landing. She then goes on, referring to the MoFAís request for information after the June 1 landing of the MD-80 at Sola: ”The Americans informed us at the time that there had been no prisoners onboard.”

So, Secretary Rumsfeld was basically saying: ìWe have absolutely no knowledge about this socalled United States Marshals Service plane, since we donít know what we donít know, but I stress that no prisoners were onboard when the plane didnít land at Sola airport.

PHOTO The photo of the aircraft the Herald believed to belong to the CIA, in Prestwick in 2004. And they are right.

Basic History:

In the Herald dated the 14/12/05, Michael Settle wrote an article entitled ìThe CIA used torture flights, says watchdogî,18 in this article he has a photo of what is Gulfstream V aircraft with engines running. With the registration move from N8068V to N44982 in 2004,19 it would also appear that the firms that the aircraft are hidden under are Ghost companies.20 This is not an unusual thing for a security service to operate misdirection, especially when an aircraft registration becomes too well known.

On paper Premier Executive Transport Services owned the aircraft which was nicknamed The Gantanamo Bay Expressî because the aircraft is used in the transportation of Al-Qaeda suspects from locations in Europe and the Middle East. Registered as N379P, it later changed registration to N8068V. The aircraft sold on paper by Premier Executive Transport Services Inc to two Limited Liabilities companies: Bayard Foreign Marketing, and Keeler and Tate Management, and that time it took a new registration N44982.

N8068V now re-registered as N44982; on paper the aircraft also has a new owner and that being ìBayard Foreign Marketingî. But not all seems to be above board, ìPortland Company.

BAYARD Foreign MARKETING appears to be a CIA front complete with imaginary directorsî21, it was also reported that ìPortland independent media centerî, had undertaken, an extensive database search of a sample of 44 of those names turned up none of the information that usually emerges in such a search: no previous addresses, no past or current telephone numbers, no business or corporate records. In addition, although most names were attached to dates of birth in the 1940s, 50s or 60s, all were given Social Security numbers between 1998 and 2003.

The New Yorker stated on the 14.02.2005 (page 2) 'This jet, which has been registered to a series of dummy American corporations, such as Bayard Foreign Marking, of Portland, Oregon, has clearance to land at U.S. military bases.'

The history of the aircraft is as follows:

· The aircraft was first registered on 18.11.1999 as N581GA..

· On 24.03.2000 it became N379P.

· On 29.01.2004 it became N8068V.

· On 01.12.2004 the aircraft then became N44982.

I accept the dates and numbers are correct for aircraft as there is much independent evidence to the draw on.24 25 26 27

However, after the whole of Europe became aware of this aircraft in early November 2005, the CIA put this executive jet on sale at an airplane broker on November 11. Due to the tainted past of the plane, and the great number of landings since 1999 (1117 times), the broker could not do anything but offer this Gulfstream V on his website as Priced Below Market, in headlines. 28 29

Basic History: I asked www.Google.com for the History of N212AZ and to my surprise got the following back from one site: ìIt has been recommended we remove this page so we have. The information is out there so if you need to find it is available just not here. Sorry...

Basic History: Once again we find that American aircraft are having questions asked about them in the Canadian Parliament. The following was asked on the 22nd of November 2005:

Public Safety

Mr. Serge Ménard (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday we asked the government about landings in Newfoundland by U.S. prison planes. The Minister of Public Safety told us that she had no information on that. Iceland knows, Spain knows, the European Union knows, Normand Lester from the daily Le Journa de Montréal knows, and so do several other media, but the minister responsible for public safety does not know.

How do we explain the fact that the Minister of Public Safety is so ill informed and that, moreover, she refuses to ask Washington to provide explanations?

[English] Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was very plain yesterday, but let me repeat for the hon. member. We have no information or reason to believe that any plane that has landed in St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador or elsewhere had anything to do with the practice of extraordinary rendition.

Let me underscore again for the hon. member that the country, this government, has never returned anyone to a country where they face a substantial risk of torture. We are in full compliance with both our domestic and international obligations.

[Translation] Mr. Serge Ménard (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, BQ): Mr. Speaker, will the minister commit to inquire? Let us be clear. Can the Minister of Public Safety tell us if, indeed, aircraft N221SG and N196D did transit through Canada, and if they were carrying prisoners that the Americans call terrorists? Can the minister at least get that information?

[English] Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have no information that any planes landed in St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, or anywhere else, carrying passengers that involved the practice of extraordinary rendition43